On 10 Jun 2005 at 0:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On 8 Jun 2005 at 23:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > >http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
> >> >
> >> >>First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7
> >> >>G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really.
> >>
> >> See...this is the beauty of the Mac OSX operating system...put the
> >> Mac OS on a " slower" machine/chip and it will run faster than
> >> Windows on that same machine/chip....put it on a faster Intel chip
> >> and it will scream compared to windows!
> >
> >Er, what? What is your basis for any comparison to Windows based on
> >the information quoted from www.xler8yourmac.com?
>
> Who said I was basing it off of this article?
In other words, there wer no facts in evidence at all?
As I thought!
> >And has there been any benchmarking comparing OS X Finale to Windows
> >Finale? I'm not a Mac user, but it seems to me that from what I've
> >heard y'all complaining about, Windows is going to win hands down.
>
> Of course not! No bench marking of Finale at this point...Coda is so
> far behind the eight ball right now..they are just trying to get up to
> XCode pace right now as far as I can discern.. they are just trying to
> get out of the gate..its a moot point. But I'm rootin' for 'em!
OK, two strikes. . .
> I'll consider this post as a response to Jari's request for a
> benchmark study as well. I had a link but it has since been taken
> down (oops..for obvious reasons). As you (we) can imagine, these
> studies are in their early stages. Developers at WWDC are being given
> "loner G5's" (in quotes you'll notice) which have Intel chips in
> them...but they are specifically required to stay mum about any bench
> mark testing.
I think you mean "loaner" PCs ;).
> Regarding my own benchmark testing (O.K., maybe you did or didn't ask)
> ...my testing...as opposed to laboratory benchmark testing...takes
> place in the real world under the conditions of sitting at a desk with
> a cup of loose leaf tea in front of both a PC and Mac...as opposed to
> in the "laboratory." In the real world things are messy...spy ware
> programs, anti-virus programs etc. run in the background on windows
> machines...and are ultimately slowing them down regardless. Something
> that thus far, Apple doesn't have to worry about.
Nor do I. I don't run full-time virus monitoring, because the benefit
is not worth the CPU cycles it uses up.
> There is an analogy that makes sense to me...when a windows
> programmer gets a flat tire, he just bolts another good tire to the
> outside of the axle rather than fixing the flat. Mac programmers
> anticipate a flat tire and do their best to have an alternative plan.
> I've owned both windows machines and Apple machines. I'm sticking
> with Apple...that's just my personal preference.
Evidence for this analogy?
It may be your opinion, but I don't know what evidence has caused you
to reach it. There are so many different programmers on Windows
(literally, millions) that blanket statements about their practices
as a group seem self-refuting.
> In addition...historically, Apple machines have run more efficiently
> on lower mhz machines vs. their PC counterparts...(google it) though
> reports are somewhat subjective and I prefer to not get into yet
> another Mac vs. PC war. I'll stick with my own experience ("benchmark
> testing") thank you.
In other words, you were talking out your ass.
> The machine(s) that Steve jobs used in his demo are merely place
> holders if you will, beta machines....I expect that the machines that
> Macintosh ultimately releases will far outpace these beta machines.
> And I think even so the beta machines are hanging in there quite well.
Of course they will! So any benchmarks that anyone has done with them
would be completely meaningless, since they would be run with pre-
production code on pre-production hardware. Firefox and Mozilla were
both slow before they reached release 1.0 because there was still a
lot of test and debugging code in them, and they hadn't been
optimized for speed. Once the crud was taken out, the performance of
both increased markedly, more than enough to be noticeable by even
the most casual user.
That's the nature of production code vs. pre-production code, so even
if the link was still valid, it would be completely meaningless.
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >
> >> >>They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff,
> >> >>so you can download drivers and run XP on the box.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how this will play out...does Apple allow windows to
> >> run natively on their boxes or do they close the loopholes and
> >> allow only OS X . . .
> >
> >Folks don't seem to be paying attention to the things posted on this
> >list, because I posted a couple of days ago a quote from an Apple
> >spokesman that answers this question:
> >
> >http://news.com.com/2100-7341_3-5733756.html
> >
> > After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil
> > Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying
> > there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based
> > Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac.
> > They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude
> > that."
> >
> > However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people
> > run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not
> > allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he
> > said.
> >
> >"We won't do anything to preclude that" seems pretty definitive to
> >me.
>
> No...I (or folks) didn't ignore your post...but remember, as recently
> as May 2005, Apple was saying about the move to Intel chips "....while
> Apple said the news should be placed 'in the category of rumour and
> speculation"...(Wall Street journal) Definitive is relative...:-)
That's a very different kind of statement. This latter was, in fact,
true -- at that point they didn't want to confirm it, they wanted it
to be seen as a rumor. They did *not* say "categorically not."
The statement I quoted is categorical: we will not do X.
> So, buy the rumor sell the news...it is all up in the air as of now...
There's a massive difference between the two statements, but only if
you read the one you cite correctly -- you seem to read it as though
it was a categorical denial of any involvement with Intel, and it was
nothing of the sort.
> Nonetheless...it is a win win situation (IMHO) for Apple if Apple
> decides that Windows is allowed to run on Apple machines natively but
> that OS X (or whatever the next gen of the OS is named) isn't allowed
> to run on a "windows" machine. Having said that, I don't think that
> Apple will ship it's machines running Windows necessarily...but then
> again who knows...Steve Jobs is smarter than I am!
I think that Apple will start shipping machines with Windows in the
2nd or 3rd quarter after hell freezes over, but absolutely not
before.
> I'm getting the feeling from the little news I have been able to
> gather from busy developers up in San Francisco, that they are feeling
> pretty good about this move. From an intuitive standpoint, I think I
> agree....For those of you that are more scientists rather than
> theoreticians (not to say that theoreticans aren't also scientists)
> and need more concrete evidence...stay tuned in the coming days and
> weeks...it can't be published now but it eventually will be!
I'm all for the continuing long-term health of the Mac community, as
they keep the rest of the industry honest.
But, please -- stop posting assertions that have no basis whatsoever
in facts or evidence.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
